Racial Attitudes in Churches of Christ

[Booty]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]i have been in two communities where chruch segregation was voluntarily upheld by the black community.  without ill-will, they turned down invitations to combine with area white congregations of equal size.  there are times racial groups wish to remain identifiable and adopt a voluntary segregated cohesion among themselves, w/o it being sinful.[/quote]

No there are not times such as you describe here which are not sinful. While I can empathize and understand the blacks aversion to uniting with the whites, I can not excuse it nor the reasons behind it.

Perhaps because in my veins flows the blood of a people who have been discriminated against, abused and, yes, enslaved for over 800 years by another people, I am able to well understand the blacks wish to remain seperate. Perhaps because I am of a even more aincient subset of those people who have further segregated ourselves by maintaining yet another seperate and mainly secret language, (My Nickname \"Brojees\" is Gammon, the Cant, Shelta, Briti.. The tongue of the travellers) I have an insight into this.

We travellers are segregated from the common Irish because we do not trust them, we Irish are segregated from the british because we do not trust them. This lack of trust, well justified, is none the less a sin, we do not give others the chance to abuse us because we prejudge their motives and keep ourselves apart. That is sinful and something I struggle with. My inbred and inate distrust of brits is perhaps my greatest weakness of all, it is where I oh so easily fall into the sin of turning my back on my fellow man. I confess and admit to this weakness before God.

On the other side we have those who choose to forget centuries of history and assume that they and we can simply forget it and move on, yet all the while retaining vestiges of the horror of history.

A classic example is the poor sods in the six counties of the north. By birth, they are british subjects, yet they are also by Irish law citizens of the Republic of Ireland as well should they choose to accept it. Many do not, my cousin Harry being one. Born and raised in Belfast city, Harry remains staunchly loyal to the crown. He is a british subject and he will always be one. Yet even Harry will admit to my own self when we are not cheeking each other , that in his visits to england he is poorly treated as just another dumb mick, another Paddy.  What is really funny though, is my strange accent spares me this treatment, I am just dealt with as a foreigner.....EVERYWHERE, including Ireland!!!

Most of this mistreatment is honestly and sincerely not conscious, it simply arises from centuries of racism and prejudice. That though while explaining it, does in no way excuse it. It remains present as a horrible sin and the only way it ever will end is when we finally accept it for what it truly is and admit that it exists.

I have been taken to task here for my cheeking of the brits and rightfully so. It is something I must stop for it is wrong, it is a prejudice of sorts that can lead to rampant racism.  

I do believe though it is time to finally admit that seperate groups such as you describe David are sinful because they stem from hate, discontent, distrust and racism. Trust me I know.

[Booty]

Barb We would love to. Our next trip is to europe, the USA is so problematic now. But perhaps in a few years??

 :blush:  :cool: :alien:  :frowning:  :crackup:  :inlove:

[Renee]

lol I laugh at myself here but just have to ask a few questions...

If you have friends that are black, orential, white and you give a party and only invite your black and white friends for what ever reason are you necessarily sinning cause you are segregating from the orential?

Is segregation in and of itself a sin OR does segregation only become sin when the heart of a man sees fit to try place someone beneath themself?

We often segregate children with learning disabilities from those of normal abilities. Does this segregation become sin or does the purpose of this segregation carry good intent and thus make it not sin?

It seems to me that segregation is more a matter of ones heart position than it is of actually the seperation of people.
If my heart is full of Christ then segregation in the negative sense cannot exist.

Renee

[janine]

Booty, if I stood to speak out against every heresy or error or bit of stupidity I hear from the preaching pulpit and the teaching lecturn, I'd have thighs the size of Wales from all the up,down,up,down,up,down...

[Booty]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]we have now set a new record for   posting.   But ulnike the little guy holding the sign, this doesn't make me frown.[/quote]
Isn't it amazing that on a discussion with a subject as ugly as this, we can find harmony and love in something as silly and trivial as a wee smiley??

I believe we need to remember always why we are here when we allow other matters equally silly and equally trivial to divide us.

I agree Marc, we certainly are off topic. Further I agree, this time there is nothing to frown about. The topic is ugly, but we share something beautiful.


++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++



[!--EDIT|Booty|Feb. 19 2003,07:21--]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Feb. 17 2003,7:56)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]{snip}

{snip} It is my opinion that Christians who are the most concerned about historical and literary context in the bible are trying to reconcile their 21st century moral values with 1st and 2nd century bigotry and beliefs.

{snip}

I know that Paul was very much against racism and for racial unity.  In that regard, I don't think what I was taught was biblical.

{snip}

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]
Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.  
 The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4  
 Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.  
 Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.

Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as a extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in \"the Good Book\" was lost -- never to be fully regained. [/quote][/quote]
Talulah, greetings from the Land of Beer and Cheese.  I read through your post several times and the links you provide.  I appreciate you doing that.  I do not agree however.

In your response to me you say those who pay attention to historical and literary context are simply trying to reconcile our present moral beliefs with the 1st century.  Then in the next you state that you know Paul was not a racist and what you were taught was not biblical!  Did Paul live in the 1st century??

No, folks who pay attention to historical and literary context are not trying to do as you assert (in self contradiction I might add  :idea: ).  Instead historical and literary context demonstrates we respect the integrity of the author whether he/she is Moses, Paul, or Plato or Marx.  To divorce any author from those two ideas is an insult to him/her for we are saying that I and I alone determine the meaning of that author.  What they intend is irrelevant.  

I am glad you admit that Paul was against racism -- but the moment you did that you completly undermined your former statement.

I want to comment about the 19th century abolitionist movement you bring up.  There can be no historical doubt that the reform movements in America in the 19th century were distinctly Christian.  The father of reform -- William Wilberforce that British stateman was a devout Christian.  His little work, Real Chrisitianity is a gem. He his work as a Christian statesman led to the abolishment of slavery in the British Empire (he was responsible for many other reforms as well).  A wonder biography of him (should you be interested is Kevin Belmonte, Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce (get it at Amazon.com).  

In the United States reform was part of the larger \"missionary impulse\" as historians have called it.  Ronald G. Walters in his now classic study, American Reformers, 1815-1860 (he is not even a \"religious historian\"!) has clearly shown that from abolition, to penal reform, to rights of women, to the temprance movement was a direct result of Christian missionary impulse.   A classic example would be William Lloyd Garrison.  Garrison had a love/hate relationship with many clergy of the day but he loved Jesus and the Bible.  Truly one of the best books I have read in years was Henry Mayer's acclaimed biography of Garrison, All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery.  I read this book three years ago and to call it a \"moral\" testament is not say to much.   Much the same could be said of Charles G. Finney, the work of Cathrine and William Booth.  Don't forget the Grimke sisters (Angelina and Sarah -- who were both abolitionists and promoters of womens rights -- the most outspoken kind).  See Donald Dayton's book Discovering An Evangelical Heritage (Harper & Row, 1976).

Far from abandoning the Bible at the edge of the 19th century -- reformers found in the Bible amazing relevance!  Not all Christians lived according to the principles in the Bible but that is a sin issue with them and not a fault of the \"good book.\"  

A word about slavery in the Bible.  I do not deny that slavery was practiced in the ancient world.  I do not deny that slavery was regulated in the Bible.  I will say, as most historians admit, that slavery in the Bible was far more humane than what was practiced in the Ancient Near East.  The most common form of slavery in the Hebrew Bible is \"debt\" slavery -- you work and pay off a debt.  It was not perpetual.  Slaves were not simply chattel either.  They were regarded as human beings in sharp contrast to the prevailing attitudes in the ANE.   Slaves could not be forced to work on certain days (like the sabbath, Ex. 20.10).  The Torah forbade handing over a fugitive slave who had sought asylum from his \"master\" (Deut. 23.15-16).  That legislation is radically  different from slavery in the USA (perhaps you have read about the Fugitive Slaver Law) and the ANE.    Slaves were periodically set free in the Bible (Year of Jubilee -- see Jeremiah 34.8ff).  Deuteronomy commands the \"owner\" to \"supply him liberally from your own flock, your own threshing floor and your own wine press\" (Deut. 15.14ff).  

According to historian Muhammad A. Dandamayev slavery was restricted to a small area in Israel.  They were not field hands, no artisan workshops are known to have used slave labor.  In fact he writes:

\"there was no predominance of slave labor in any branch of the economy, and it was used primarily for household tasks requiring neither skill nor extensive supervision . . .\"
(\"Slavery\" (OT) in Anchor Bible Dictionary ed, David Noel Freedman, Vol 6, p. 65).

Dandamayev states further about the radical nature of the Hebrew Bible's view of slavery contrasted with its ANE enviroment:

\"We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters.\" (Ibid).

We even told \"Do not slander a servant to a master, or the servant will curse you, and you will be held guilty.\" (Proverbs 30.10, NRSV)

I think taking historical and literary contexts seriously forces us to the conclusion that Scripture has a completly different spirit towards slavery than the world of the time.  And it is because of that Spirit that Christians did in fact abolish slavery in the Roman world in the 4th century.  That same spirit lead to the reforming impulses mentioned above.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI

[James Rondon]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Booty wrote:
So knowing this, who would invite me to visit your church for Sunday services?[/quote]
You would be more than welcome, Booty...

[By the way, where did you get the \"fro\" smiley?]

[WileyClarkson]

Booty,

those little things have just made my day  

[Talulah]

:blush:

Sorry.  I did mean to say as well that you are right about Christians leading the movement to end slavery.  I am particularly impressed with the record of the Quakers.